Worlds of Design: Baseline Assumptions of Fantasy RPGs

You can write a set of fantasy role-playing game (FRPG) rules without specifying a setting, but there’s a default setting assumed by virtually every FRPG. Moreover, some rules (e.g. the existence of plate armor, and large horses) imply things about technology and breeding in the setting.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The Basics of FRPG​

All FRPGs start with some assumptions built into the setting, some of them so innocuous that gamers might not even realize they're assumptions to begin with. For example the assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden, even though for thousands of years of history, horses weren’t large enough for riding (the era of war chariots from about 1700-1000 BCE, and the era before that of infantry only).

Familiarity vs. strangeness is an important question for any worldbuilder to answer. What are gamers familiar with? That tends to be the default. J. R. R. Tolkien’s works (Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, etc.) are nearly a default setting for many, as in the dwarves and elves who are quite different from traditional stories of dwarves and elves. You could argue that the default setting is more Tolkien than it is medieval European, but he largely adopted Late Medieval European (1250-1500), so I prefer to refer to that.

The question is, do you want your ruleset, or your campaign setting, to follow the default? An early example of great deviation from the default was the wonderfully different world of Tekumel (Empire of the Petal Throne, and a few novels). A “different” FRPG might posit no monsters at all, perhaps not even elves and dwarves, just a lot of humans, yet never explicitly say so: if you leave out rules for monsters and humanoid races other than humans, you have a different-than-baseline setting, even if you didn't consciously make that decision. But be warned: too much unfamiliarity may make some players uncomfortable.

Are there baseline assumptions for science fiction? There seems to be so much variety, I wouldn’t try to pin it down.

The Baseline​

What ARE the baseline assumptions? In general, they are mostly late medieval (not “Dark Ages” (500-1000) or High Medieval (1000-1250), as FRPGs tend to be magic grafted to later medieval Europe. In no particular order here is a list of categories for baseline assumptions that I’ll discuss specifically:

• Transportation
• Communication
• State of Political Entities
• Commonality of Magic
• Commonality of Adventurers
• Commonality of Monsters
• Length of History and Rate of Change
• Level of Technology
• Warfare and the Military
• Religion
• Demography
• Climate

Transportation​

Wooden sailing vessels, late medieval style. In calm waters such as landlocked seas and lakes, galleys; in wild waters (such as oceans), small sailing vessels. River barges much preferable to poor roads and carts. And are there wonderful roads left by or maintained by an Empire (Rome)? See "Medieval Travel & Scale."

Communication​

Proceeds at the rate of travel, by horse or by ship. In other words, very slow by modern standards. Even as late as 1815, the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the War of 1812 had ended (in 1814), but before news of the treaty had reached Louisiana from Europe.

State of Political Entities​

Monarchies and lower level independent states (such as Duchies) ruled by “the man in charge” (very rarely, a woman). Nobles. States, not nations (the people rarely care which individual is actually in charge). Castles are so defensible that it’s fairly easy for subordinate nobles to defy their superiors. There are small cities (5-10,000 usually), not really large ones (over 100,000 people).

Commonality of Magic​

Magicians are usually rare, secretive folk. Few people ever see any manifestation of magic. In some cases the church or the government tries to suppress magic. See "The Four Stages of Magic."

Commonality of Adventurers​

Magicians, knights, powerful clerics, all are rare. 1 in 500 people? 1 in 10,000?

Commonality of Monsters​

Human-centric. Monsters are usually individuals rather than large groups. Intelligent monsters are rare. (Here Tolkien’s influence, the great orc/goblin hordes, often overrides European influence.) Undead may be common. Dragons are “legendary.”

Length of History and Rate of Change​

Slow pace of change of technology. Awareness of the greater days of a “universal empire” in the past (such as Rome), now gone. Technology changed much faster in late medieval times, than in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

Level of Technology​

Late medieval, or possibly less. (Late medieval for the technology necessary to make full plate armor, if nothing else.) See "When Technology Changes the Game."

Warfare and the Military​

Wars rarely changed borders much (Late Medieval) - the great migrations have ended. Wars certainly aren’t national wars, the common people are spectators. See "The Fundamental Patterns of War."

Religion​

What we’re used to in later medieval times is a universal monotheistic church (Catholicism), though with foreign churches of different stripe (Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist). But in games, more often the setting seems to derive from older, pantheon-based, religions.

Demography​

Density of population is low. Depends on whether the local area is frontier or settled. Cities are population sinks (high mortality rates). There may be stories of a Great Plague (later-1340s and onward in Europe).

Climate​

Temperate medieval European (more often, English (governed by the Gulf Stream)), with fairly cool summers so that full armor is not impossibly hot. (Imagine wearing full armor when the average summer high is 91 degrees F, as in northern Florida.) But winters are much less severe than in the northern USA. (Modern European climate is currently getting much warmer than in late medieval times.)

Your Turn: Do you see the default setting as different that what I’ve summarized?

 

[Mannahnin]

Coming at this from a more simulationist/old-school approach, I don't think we necessarily even have to say that Batman or Jessica Fletcher operate completely outside of or within different rules from the "normal" people in the world. They represent an extreme end of the bell curve in one or multiple areas. That some people have extraordinary abilities or run into very unusual situations on a recurring basis is RARE, but that doesn't mean it's supernatural.

 

[nevin]

I wasn't arguing that wizards are just as common as fighters. Just that they make up a substantial percentage of rulers (and thus presumably of other ranks in the nobility, since all these societies are pretty much structured that way). If I extend that to 'casters', then we have to count the clerics, druids and rangers as well, and the bards (though I don't recall a bardic NPC listed). Then there are 'magical figures' like dragons and such which also appear in small numbers.

But if you go back to the DMG, there are certainly 1 classed figure per 100 humans (1 per 50 demi-humans). 20% of these are magic users (of which about 15% are illusionists). Another 20% are clerics. Specialized classes aren't touched upon, but presumably there are also rangers amongst the fighters (which are 44% of all classed NPCs). The DMG never attempts to pin down level distribution amongst this group. However, we see that class abilities in the level 1-3 range are quite common amongst NPCs in the encounter tables, the Monster Manual, etc. Figures with class abilities up to 6-7th level are typical leader types in many groups (orcs, bandits, pirates, merchants, patrols, etc.). Given the types and levels of followers as another input, we can conclude that NPCs up to 3rd level in various classes are not exceptional. They form the basic professional cadre of military and other combat-adjacent professions. Presumably a large percentage of them are drawn from the nobility in a medievalistic feudalistic type of setting.

So we can conclude that the nobility contains quite a range of casters, which make up as much as 45% of all classed NPCs. The DMG does go on, in the following sections to explain logically how most PCs and their associates are probably nobility, and the rest are probably from wealthy backgrounds of other types. I would think it wouldn't be going too far to say that the vast majority, maybe practically all, magic users are thus noble, though of course few of them will be titled. Still, we see from Greyhawk that titled magic users are a thing, if somewhat less common. Likewise for clerics, though a ruling cleric does at least least imply some sort of theocratic state structure. Still, many medieval prelates were powerful nobles in their own right, there's no reason to assume this is not the case in D&D worlds.

Honestly, the idea that people would study magic/devote themselves to the priesthood and NOT use the powers gained thus to become influential and assume leadership positions in the world seems absurd. While some wizards are no doubt recluses or whatever, I question whether that would even be realistically the best route to success. As we see with the top levels of science and other pursuits in the real world, collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas, studying with other master, etc. is the most common recipe for great success. Even in ancient times philosophers banded together to discuss their ideas and advance their knowledge. IMHO the most advanced wizards would be situated in seats of power, and if not being actual rulers would be vital associates of those who were, and often quite active in the intellectual, spiritual, and political life of their communities. In fact, most of the rules of AD&D, and its settings (which are pretty much all extant settings, except Eberron) seem to envisage that.

So, while I can buy the argument that some rulers with mediocre personal magic talent are best advised to advance as fighters, etc. it seems perfectly natural and reasonable to assume that a significant subset are magically inclined. At the highest levels, those figures will undoubtedly be the most powerful in existence, as nothing really tops a high level wizard or cleric! In fact it would seem to me that such would almost inevitably rule whatever they wanted (and thus we must conclude they have a lot of equivalent competition, since they don't).

I disagree that the most advanced wizards would be in positions of power. The most advanced wizards would probably have pulled back away from society and focused on their magic. Advanced magic starts getting into summing creatures from other planes, curses, and all kinds of components need to be gathered that in many cases require doing things that are probably illegal, immoral and quite dangerous to the wizard and anyone near them. I think you have clerics and Mages confused on the power spectrum. I think both wizards and clerics in general would not want the day to day BS that would interfere with their magical pursuit of power or perfection . Now I could see Wizards guilds, and Organized religions wielding collective power in thier organizational self interest. But even then the organization would probably want to be one step removed from the rulers so they would survive the inevitable changes in dynasties that would occur. Of course this is all predicated on non evil casters and religions. Totally different argument for the bad guys.

 

[Mannahnin]

It seems to me that this discussion is illustrating other Baseline Assumptions.

Like the idea that alignment is important and that the way powerful good and evil casters would pursue power and exert influence over society is meaningfully different, as contrasted against the perspective that human beings on the whole all behave in certain ways, so we can make broad statements about how the nobility as a social class would employ magic if the world and people are generally a lot like ours and human beings in the real world.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It goes back a long way too. Just look at Beowulf. The king and all his knights can't defeat Grendel, but in walks a mysterious stranger from who knows where and he defeats the monster not only single handed, but unarmed.

Yeah, he's just described as a 'hero' and he just 'does heroic things' that nobody else can do. If we were to consider him a 'PC analog' in terms of a model of heroic heroes, then we simply have a guy who 'is a hero', and there's no attempt or need to explain it. Some other heroes are cast as sons of gods and whatnot, or having gained some sort of power through some circumstance, but this is one case where the hero simply IS.

Certainly PCs can be of the same ilk, and are NOT generally explained by other supernatural logic etc. Although 4e backgrounds does allow for some level of "fated hero" or "touched by XYZ" kind of thing (and Sorcerers get that as a part of their class).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I disagree that the most advanced wizards would be in positions of power. The most advanced wizards would probably have pulled back away from society and focused on their magic. Advanced magic starts getting into summing creatures from other planes, curses, and all kinds of components need to be gathered that in many cases require doing things that are probably illegal, immoral and quite dangerous to the wizard and anyone near them. I think you have clerics and Mages confused on the power spectrum. I think both wizards and clerics in general would not want the day to day BS that would interfere with their magical pursuit of power or perfection . Now I could see Wizards guilds, and Organized religions wielding collective power in thier organizational self interest. But even then the organization would probably want to be one step removed from the rulers so they would survive the inevitable changes in dynasties that would occur. Of course this is all predicated on non evil casters and religions. Totally different argument for the bad guys.

Well, you can develop that kind of logic. It doesn't quite explain the typical D&D settings where many authorities are in fact casters, but obviously you can have whatever conceits you want. Of course you are, again, not being consistent with PCs, since they certainly don't do dark dangerous deeds just to become powerful casters (well, they get XP from dangerous situations, but there's no game logic as to how that translates to power really).

Organizations might NOT be the 'sovereigns', and usually aren't because they serve many interests, but they can of course be power centers, and contain leaders as members. Again, the details are up to the setting. In Greyhawk it was canon that a council of wizards was at least a major power in the world, if not an actual 'power behind the throne' of most nations.

Personally I see wizardry is an academic pursuit similar to science in our world. So it may be that the very most talented wizards aren't the highest placed individuals, but wizard talent is certainly necessary in order to reach the highest levels (IE the dean may be a politician, but he's still a pretty well-educated and capable wizard, even if the head of the conjuration department is significantly higher level and isn't interested in day-to-day politics).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It seems to me that this discussion is illustrating other Baseline Assumptions.

Like the idea that alignment is important and that the way powerful good and evil casters would pursue power and exert influence over society is meaningfully different, as contracted against the perspective that human beings on the whole all behave in certain ways, so we can make broad statements about how the nobility as a social class would employ magic if the world and people are generally a lot like ours and human beings in the real world.

Well, one might assume that antisocial persons are more likely to be deranged or evil. Its simplistic WRT the real world, but for an FRPG that sort of conceit is OK (well, you could criticize it on political correctness grounds, but I refuse to do so). Anyway, I think that covers the 'swamp tower' sort of wizard that is off in some 'dungeon' someplace. He's pretty likely to be evil, or mad, and an opponent. Of course, you could subvert that trope, but its an OK baseline for a setting. I'm a bit less impressed with the logic in real-world terms, there are after all no such things as 'mad scientists' in our world, but there are plenty of potential supernatural influences in a fantasy world that can explain things, if any explanation is even desired.

So, maybe we can, and maybe we cannot, make too many assumptions about the people in the fantasy world! However I think it is wise for baselines in fantasy worlds to be somewhat grounded, lest everything be so strange that the players are unable to make logical suppositions from what they know. At that point 'fictional positioning' becomes ineffective and the game would devolve down into a sort of chaos.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The only model we can use for a D&D setting is real world history. But in real world history magic and monsters are not real. So in order to use the real world to model our fantasy world we assume magic and monsters have no significant impact outside a small bubble around the party.

what

how does this make sense

what is fantasy worldbuilding

what is worldbuilding in general

do worlds where magic and monsters are subsumed as everyday parts of the world not exist

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is a complete non sequitur. That some people can learn magic and that those people are common enough that in larger settlements you're likely to find a person who have done so in no way implies that learning magic is 'easy' and anyone can do it. In fact that such services are sold relies on certain amount of rarity, because otherwise people would just learn to do it themselves. Furthermore, as this indeed is a service that can be bought, it very much means that wealthy can just hire a wizard, just like they would hire any other sort of specialist when they needed. A setting where the talentless upper class twits are routinely brute forced to be wizards only exists in your head. And that's fine, if you want to run that sort of a game, nothing in the rules is stopping you. But AFAIK, not even the most magic heavy of the official settings work that way.

That some people can learn a skill (check) and that those people are common enough you can find one (check) and they are selling their services (Check)

So... Blacksmithing is not something a normal person could learn right? I mean, people do learn it, and blacksmiths can be found in most cities, but they do sell their services, indicating a certain amount of rarity. So, it would be completely unreasonable for a person to learn how to be a blacksmith in less than a decade right?

Oh wait. You're going to say magic is harder than that.

So... alchemy/chemistry is not something a normal person could learn right? I mean, people do learn it, and alchemists can be found in most cities, but they do sell their services, indicating a certain amount of rarity. So, it would be completely unreasonable for a person to learn how to be an alchemist in less than a decade right?

Oh wait. You're going to say magic is harder than that.

So, what skill is it that people can learn that takes so much effort to learn that nearly no one could learn it? That even the richest, most powerful people in the world, with the most free time in the world, cannot be expected to put themselves through that much time and effort to learn that skill?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are no potato farmers in your world, as there is no potato farmer class.

That is a horrifically poor interpretation of my position. I'm using wizard to refer to "person who studied how to use arcane magic and does so successfully". I am referring to the ability, which is iconic for the class.

Obviously farmers exist, and obviously they would have skills and abilities. The game doesn't give us any of them, there is no skill except nature that would cover what they can do.

Yes. If an NPC becomes a PC they then follow PC rules. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

The thing is D&D only has rules for adventuring heroes. It is not a world simulator. The only model we can use for a D&D setting is real world history. But in real world history magic and monsters are not real. So in order to use the real world to model our fantasy world we assume magic and monsters have no significant impact outside a small bubble around the party.

That is not only terrible world-building, but lazy world-building. Going forth with the assumption that nothing changes even if you change everything is exactly how we get travesties like "Bright"

That is correct, just read the comics. It's not uncommon for someone to don a costume and try and emulate Batman. And they are dead before the end of the issue.

Batman can't do what he does because of his training, or because he is smart, or rich.

Batman does what he does because HE IS BATMAN.

Yes. Every player character in D&D is the chosen one. If you are not the chosen one then the story isn't about you.

And the people they encounter are special too. Not as special - they use NPC stat blocks. But there may be only one coven of necromancers on the planet, but the PCs will bump into it the same way Jessica Fletcher bumps into corpses.

At this point you are literally just talking about plot armor.

And you can only really build parody worlds on the assumption of plot armor, not worlds for more series stories.

I'm not saying Plot Armor doesn't exists, it is something you can never really get rid of, but you can't build your world on the assumption that plot armor is real in universe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, he's just described as a 'hero' and he just 'does heroic things' that nobody else can do. If we were to consider him a 'PC analog' in terms of a model of heroic heroes, then we simply have a guy who 'is a hero', and there's no attempt or need to explain it. Some other heroes are cast as sons of gods and whatnot, or having gained some sort of power through some circumstance, but this is one case where the hero simply IS.

Certainly PCs can be of the same ilk, and are NOT generally explained by other supernatural logic etc. Although 4e backgrounds does allow for some level of "fated hero" or "touched by XYZ" kind of thing (and Sorcerers get that as a part of their class).

Sure, but you can't build a coherent, serious world on the assumption that "heroes do heroic things and have no explanation"

Now, I'm going to fully admit, I really enjoy the type story telling where they explore the edge cases. I like things like the comic of She-Hulk helping a man sue for the industrial accident that gave him powers, or a comic focused on the super-human people who rebuild New York twice a week because it got blown up again.

If we had flying monsters in the mountains, we wouldn't go mountain climbing, and so you wouldn't see sports gear showcasing mountain climbers, nor would you see pristine icy mountains used in beer advertisements.


And I'm not saying that this is all bad, I recognize that plot armor and quick and dirty world-building happen, and for a two hour movie that's fine. But if you want to craft a 400 hour immersive experience? Those cracks can show really fast.

 

[Minigiant]

Funny how I've specified that I've been talking first, maybe second level spells this entire time, and done so multiple times, and only now you decide to reveal that you've been talking 3rd level spells this entire time, because the things I listed out were never worth their time to learn.

Almost seems like an assumption you should have shared sooner, when I said I was talking about only getting up to 3rd level as a character (as in, 2nd level spells. 3rd level in the class)

I was assuming you magocracy wasn't run by 1st level wizard apprentices.

1) Are we to assume that becoming a 9th level fighter is substantial harder than becoming a 9th level wizard? It hasn't been for the last three editions of the game

Yes.

Fighter keys off 3 ability scores. You need aa good Str, Dex, or Con to be a good fighter in 3e, 4e, and 5e. Whereas wizard keys off 1 single stat: Intelligence.

2) If we have 9th level rogues and fighters do you know what that means? 9th level Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters are viable. How powerful is their magic? Why, second level spells, the same level I've been speaking towards.

And 2nd level spells still barely produce effects worth all the work for the super rich who would not be adventuring.

3) Are any of those nobles listed as Eldritch Knights or Arcane Tricksters? No, of course not. Because Greyhawk was created before those classes existed. The idea of a magical subclass of fighter is completely new to this edition of the game. And I don't mean gishes, or presitge classes, I mean "I took my 5th level of fighter and gained a new spell because of it" style of subclass.

Indeed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That some people can learn a skill (check) and that those people are common enough you can find one (check) and they are selling their services (Check)

So... Blacksmithing is not something a normal person could learn right? I mean, people do learn it, and blacksmiths can be found in most cities, but they do sell their services, indicating a certain amount of rarity. So, it would be completely unreasonable for a person to learn how to be a blacksmith in less than a decade right?

And by your logic every noble would learn blacksmithing so that they could make their own weapons and armour...

Oh wait. You're going to say magic is harder than that.

So... alchemy/chemistry is not something a normal person could learn right? I mean, people do learn it, and alchemists can be found in most cities, but they do sell their services, indicating a certain amount of rarity. So, it would be completely unreasonable for a person to learn how to be an alchemist in less than a decade right?

Oh wait. You're going to say magic is harder than that.

So, what skill is it that people can learn that takes so much effort to learn that nearly no one could learn it? That even the richest, most powerful people in the world, with the most free time in the world, cannot be expected to put themselves through that much time and effort to learn that skill?

The magic is exactly as easy or as hard to learn as you want it to be in your setting.